Latest news with #Aradhe
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court questions legal basis of stipend for junior lawyers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) raised questions over whether junior lawyers in Maharashtra have a statutory right to receive a monthly stipend, even as it expressed sympathy for their financial struggles. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by twelve junior advocates from Maharashtra seeking a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 for junior lawyers with less than three years of practice and an annual income under ₹1 lakh. While acknowledging the financial hardship faced by junior lawyers, the Court questioned the legal basis for mandating a stipend. 'What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. We agree with you. But principally, who will give this? Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds?' Chief Justice Aradhe asked. He further queried whether the demand served a broader public interest: 'There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?' The petitioners, represented by advocates Ajit Deshpande and Akshay Desai, argued that the stipend would provide crucial financial assistance during the formative years of legal practice, particularly for those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited similar stipend schemes implemented in other states including Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh, and pointed to a Bar Council of India (BCI) recommendation for stipends of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban regions. When the petitioners pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already passed directions in this regard, Chief Justice Aradhe replied, 'Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?' The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), in its response, stated that implementing the scheme would cost approximately ₹155 crore annually — an amount it claimed it cannot afford without state support. The BCMG counsel said, 'Certain states that have these schemes are aided. We can't do that in Maharashtra. We had sent a representation.' The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and directed the parties to return with clarity on whether any statutory provision requires such financial aid for junior lawyers. The petition also proposes that the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund be used to finance the scheme. Filed in 2022, the petition argues for the creation of a permanent stipend scheme to support young advocates through the early, financially unstable years of legal practice. The petition said, 'A survey conducted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy claims that more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across 7 High Courts said that advocates with less than 2 years of legal practice at the Bar earn less than ₹10,000 a month. The survey also showed the disparity in incomes of senior advocates and the entrance of the profession. This reflects the need of the hour to support young lawyers who have not been in a position to sustain themselves.' It also said that the State Government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. 'On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to provide ₹20,000 as a minimum subsistence allowance per month to lawyers who are not financially well off so that they can support their families following the lockdown. But unfortunately, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government,' the petition said.
India Today
6 days ago
- India Today
Local train death cases alarming: High Court seeks report from Railway committees
The Bombay High Court on Friday termed the situation 'alarming' after taking note of the June 9 incident in which eight passengers fell from two local trains passing each other, resulting in five division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by daily commuter Yatin Jadhav, directed the Railways to provide detailed information on two expert committees — one specifically investigating the June 9 incident between Mumbra and Kalwa stations, and another high-level panel focused on the broader issue of commuter court asked the railway authorities to submit the committees' recommendations along with implementation timelines. 'You have to take action to ensure that this should not happen in the future. This should not happen,' said Chief Justice Aradhe during the hearing. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, representing the Railways, informed the court that a multidisciplinary committee headed by a senior divisional safety officer has been constituted to investigate the incident. The report from this committee is awaited."Apart from this, looking into the concerns about the safety of daily commuters, the railway has set up a high level committee, which is a separate committee from the Mumbra incident, and the entire object of the committee is 'zero death mission'. This is on the entire Central and Western Railway. That committee is already working and a number of steps have already been taken,' Singh told the the bench expressed grave concern over the continuing accidents. 'No, but obviously, these steps taken by you are clearly not sufficient. What should be done?' the Chief Justice Marne cited railway data from 2024, which recorded 3,580 deaths — an average of 10 fatalities per day. 'This is an alarming situation. Ten deaths every day! This is your own data,' he said. He acknowledged a 46 per cent reduction compared to 2009 but emphasised that the numbers remain Justice Aradhe underlined the need for immediate and effective action. 'What is required to be done, do it. This can't be accepted. The doors should not be open and you should ensure that there is no scope for falling,' he Singh then told the court that the railways are working towards that and have already undertaken work like fencing of railway tracks so that trespassing can be curtailed. 'Construction of fencing between two railway tracks is also being looked into. We have shifted stalls from stations to prevent overcrowding and we have increased the number of coaches.'The bench has scheduled the next hearing of the PIL for July Watch
